Metaplatybunus disputandus, Chitadze & Bulbulashvili & Snegovaya, 2025

Metaplatybunus disputandus sp. nov. Chitadze, Bulbulashvili and Snegovaya urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act:9578DDB5-DCB3-4286-B27B-179A71EA0783

Figs 3–6 View FIGURES 3–10. 3–6 , 11–14 View FIGURES 11–14

GEORGIA • 1 ♂ (Holotype) ( IEC); Gori ( Fig. 19 View FIGURE 19 ); N41.9695°, E44.0931°; 790 m a.s.l.; 16 May 2023; leg. N. Bulbulashvili; hand collecting; Kaklebi church vicinity, mixed forest, on the bush; CaBOL-ID 1035653 GoogleMaps . • RUSSIA • 1 ♂ (Paratype) ( RCNS); N. Ossetia, Tsey Gorge, Tsey Ridge ; N42.79891°, E43.97401°; 1480 m a.s.l.; 23 June 2016; leg. S.K. Alekseev; barber traps, pine forest GoogleMaps .

Barcoding: We submit the first sequence of M. disputandus sp. nov. obtained from the specimen with CaBOLID 1035653 ( BOLD: AGO6659). Mitochondrial COI data of Metaplatybunus georgicus and M. disputandus sp. nov. (p- distance 5.47%) partly supports the proper generic placement and validity of the herein-described species ( Hebert et al. 2003).

Diagnosis. Males of Metaplatybunus disputandus sp. nov. differ from those occurring in Georgia M. georgicus in the following characteristics: significantly smaller body size vs. larger in M. georgicus ( Figs 3–4, 7–8 View FIGURES 3–10. 3–6 ; Silhavy 1966: fig. 1), more prominent and numerous eye denticles vs. less prominent and fewer in M. georgicus ( Figs 6, 10 View FIGURES 3–10. 3–6 ; Silhavy 1966 fig. 2), abdomen almost long as wide vs. ca. 1.6 times longer than wide in M. georgicus ( Figs 3, 7 View FIGURES 3–10. 3–6 ; Silhavy 1966: fig. 1). BLI 1.98 vs. smaller in M. georgicus 1.4, subequal in M. valentinae 2.06. Less prominent spines on the ventral side of the palpal femur vs. strong in M. georgicus ( Figs 13 View FIGURES 11–14 , 17 View FIGURES 15–18 ; Silhavy 1966: figs. 4, 5), uneven cheliceral apophysis (Ap) on basal segment vs. prominent in M. georgicus ( Figs 14 View FIGURES 11–14 , 18 View FIGURES 15–18 ; Silhavy 1966: fig. 3), and penis shape ( Figs 11–12 View FIGURES 11–14 , 15–16 View FIGURES 15–18 ; Silhavy 1966: figs 6–9). From occurring in the NW Caucasus M. valentinae Snegovaya, 2022 it can be distinguished by the shape of penis ( Figs 11-12 View FIGURES 11–14 ; Snegovaya 2022: figs 1J–L), lack of spines on palpal femur vs. permanent in M. valentinae and overall darker coloration vs. silvery.

Description. Male (Holotype). Total length 3.5 mm long, 2.07 mm wide. Eye tubercules with 9–11 pointy denticles. Eye tubercle 0.6 mm long, 0.5 mm wide. Body brownish with light brown limbs. Chelicera simply shaped, with uneven basal cheliceral apophysis (Ap). Cheliceral basal segment 0.7 mm long, distal segment 1.3 mm long. Penis short, 2.6 mm long, base wide, tapering towards neck, slightly expanded towards glans; glans 0.3 mm long; stylus 0.1 mm long. Leg and pedipalp measurements as in Table 1.

Female. Unknown.

Etymology. The specific epithet is derived from the Latin “ disputandum ” meaning “arguable”, pointing to the difficulties of naming the species.

Distribution. Georgia, North Ossetia (present MS).

Male (Paratype). Body 4.0 mm long, 2.1 mm wide. Penis 2.8 mm long, glans 0.3 mm, stylus 0.1 mm. Other characters of the paratype similar to those of the holotype.